7 ms·

The problem is the government and traditional media have been caught lying again and again. Once that trust is broken I don't know how you rebuild it. Hell peo

The problem is the government and traditional media have been caught lying again and again. Once that trust is broken I don't know how you rebuild it. Hell people I commonly talk to still believe a police officer was beaten to death on 1/6 and that people, other then the women shot for trying to enter the chambers, died directly due to the riot. All because of that what the news reported and quietly fixed days later without ever really owning up to it.

systemvoltage 5y ago
The most egregious of all is suppression of Lab Leak theory from the beginning. Emails between Collins and Fauci are absolutely chilling. Do yourself a favor and look up unredacted versions (Alina Chen’s Twitter) through FOIA requests. Holyshit was my reaction. The Lancet letter was also riddled with misinformation, suppression and conflicts of interest (Dr. Drazdak). I expect more from our leaders.
- indymike 5y ago
  > I expect more from our leaders. You should, and you should be free to discuss and write about exactly what your expectations are and how those leaders failed you.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I actually believe in Institutions with a capital I and want them to succeed, build trust and help educate people of their reputation, historical significance and their importance in society. I’ve worked with NIST for many years - brilliant people doing good work. But when they continue to lie to public, suppress facts, have a political agenda, and media is along with it, it’s becoming harder. I still think CDC does good work. Just that the leadership needs to come out clean and apologize the public for being partisan.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      > I still think CDC does good work. Just that the leadership needs to come out clean and apologize the public for being partisan. Why are you saying "partisan" rather than "incompetent" ? It's surely convenient to blame the institutional incompetence on a strawman "other side", but the fact of the matter is that under administrations from both Parties they've repeatedly dropped the ball. Distributing free rapid tests and finally recommending N95's after most everyone has stopped caring about pandemic is just icing on the cake. Biden's inauguration could have been a great time to break from the previous missteps, but the political narrative of "the pandemic is over thanks to vaccines" had to play instead. Which when you think about it is from the same exact vein of overly optimistic denial as "it'll be gone by Easter", just preached to a different choir.
      - systemvoltage 5y ago
        It was partisanry. Francis Collins (NIH Director) and Fauci from NSAID were afraid of appearing to support Trump's rhetoric of China-virus. So they doubled down on supression of information and completely shutdown any discussion in the entire scientific community regarding Lab Leak origins.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        mindslight 5y ago
        I'd say it's a stretch to characterize reacting against ignorant demagoguery as "partisanry", but okay. I'd still say the majority of trust was squandered by public facing guidance and actions, rather than what happened behind the scenes.
SomewhatLikely 5y ago
They may have some details wrong, but do you think their overall impression of the event is wildly inaccurate? There was significant violence perpetrated during that event, even if it didn't result in death. Police officers were beaten. When these mistaken people are corrected and told no one died at the hands of rioters, but 150 police officers sustained injuries some so bad they were still out of work six months later, does their opinion significantly change?
- nonethewiser 5y ago
  >They may have some details wrong, but do you think their overall impression of the event is wildly inaccurate? The prosecutors do. None are being charged with insurrection nor terrorism, just trespassing and disorderly conduct.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > None are being charged with insurrection nor terrorism Haven't 11 Oath Keepers been charged with "seditious conspiracy"[1]? Does that not come under the definition of "insurrection" - "a violent uprising against an authority or government"? [1] "[If] two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States" via https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      > Haven't 11 Oath Keepers been charged with "seditious conspiracy"[1]? Does that not come under the definition of "insurrection" - "a violent uprising against an authority or government"? How many of these Oath Keeper individuals were directly led into this activity by FBI agents, CIs, "cutouts"/contractors, such as Ray Epps [1] and Stewart Rhodes[2]? It appears that the recent charges of seditious conspiracy were in direct response to Darren Beattie's reporting of the coverup of Epps involvement, and Darren's drumbeat around Stewart Rhodes. This, after Darren uncovered FBI removing Ray Epps from the most-wanted list, hiding his name, and appearing to cover for their relationship with him during senate testimony. [1] https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/ https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-prot... [2] https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-missing-link-fbi-unindicted-co-conspirator/ https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keeper...
happytoexplain 5y ago
>quietly fixed Note that, while I didn't personally consume any sources of news making these mistakes about this event and therefore can't reasonably comment on them, this specific wording is used extremely commonly as an uncharitable attack on those who are opposite to one's own political leanings. I.e. corrections are always described as "quiet" despite frequently being published in the same manner as the original material.
geekpowa 5y ago
I search "Jan 6 Deaths" and very first hit is this NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol... The article contradicts your claim "reported and quietly fixed days later without ever really owning up to it". Firstly it is the first hit so hardly quiet. Secondly it outlines that initial reporting of Sicknick's death was simply reporting what capital police said, later revised by medical examiner. All front and center in this article.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I am just learning this. I thought all deaths were due to rioters and knew about Ashley's death when she was fatally shot. I read liberal media, all day, everyday - subscribed to WaPo and NYT.
- selwynii 5y ago
  Corrections get a tiny single digit fraction of the views of the original. There is no button to make sure everyone who saw the original sees the correction, assuming one is made. All you need is a few other places making the same claim, sourced to NYT, and only the people that care enough will even click through to read the source. NYT isn't putting corrections on headline news for the same visibility as the nice fresh off the press article.
  - sharperguy 5y ago
    There labels on all the major social media platforms now saying if something is considered misinformation. Maybe there should be a "major parts of this story were retracted by the media outlet" or something to news articles like this.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  This largely has to do with the social media ecosystem in which these traditional companies find themselves, where social media is the primary vector for information access for the majority now (HN is an extreme outlier where people may actually read things beyond their "news" feed). "quietly fixed" in that sense means "NYT reports one thing and it goes viral, corrects/updates/adds context later post-virality and, because it doesn't fit the existing narrative established by the initial viral story, most don't see it". Most people don't go back and check to see if a story they read 6 months ago has some new details that fundamentally change the impact of that story. Whether NYT knows about this phenomenon, and (ahem "quietly") tunes their reporting to that phenomenon is a separate question.
creato 5y ago
> The problem is the government and traditional media have been caught lying again and again. These two things are huge. They are not monolithic entities that "lie" or "don't lie". I think a big problem is such blind cynicism. Especially when the alternatives people are turning to are hilariously worse. I'd be more sympathetic to the claim that traditional media is terrible if they weren't using that to direct influence towards crazy uncles on facebook instead. I think many things people think are "lies" are just uncertainties. The pandemic is full of these. There are a ton of confounding variables and we don't have any perfect control groups from which to make any conclusions. Basically every big issue that gets debated by the internet armchair experts is badly affected by this: COVID severity, the effectiveness of vaccines, masks, Ivermectin. Every damn thread is full of people speaking as authoritatively as they possibly can pointing to individual studies or data points without understanding the context, scale, or confounding factors.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
flyingcircus3 5y ago
> traditional media I see this distinction made all of the time when this topic comes up. The mainstream media is untrustworthy. Corporate media has an agenda. Legacy media is corrupt. These qualifiers all imply that there is some non-traditional, non-corporate, non-legacy media that does not have these problems. Yet whenever the people making these distinctions are asked who/what these superior alternatives are, the answers are always underwhelming, or outright laughable. So who are these beacons of truth you allude by contrasting the "traditional" media?
- nonethewiser 5y ago
  Legacy/traditional/corporate/entrenched media has an outsized impact. There doesnt need to be some pure alternative in order to recognize that.
  - flyingcircus3 5y ago
    If there is no pure alternative, then these problems are not unique to legacy/traditional/corporate/entrenched media, and therefore have nothing to do with them being in the mainstream.
- double_nan 5y ago
  I'm not sure that there is such a beacon of truth you are looking for. May be that should be the resolution after all the dust settles.
  - flyingcircus3 5y ago
    Of course there isn't! That's why its so preposterous to single out "traditional" media as the sole purveyors of falsehoods. Meanwhile, this other segment of the media is essentially a broken clock of bottomless cynicism and grievance airing, which somehow bears no blame for the erosion of trust.
    - double_nan 5y ago
      I guess there was too much trust in the MSM at one point and what we see now is a 2 fold problem: 1. A hangover after the blind trust period 2. A degradation of MSM became obvious and opened a way for smaller outlets and citizen journalists.

systemvoltage 5y ago

The most egregious of all is suppression of Lab Leak theory from the beginning. Emails between Collins and Fauci are absolutely chilling. Do yourself a favor and look up unredacted versions (Alina Chen’s Twitter) through FOIA requests. Holyshit was my reaction. The Lancet letter was also riddled with misinformation, suppression and conflicts of interest (Dr. Drazdak). I expect more from our leaders.

indymike 5y ago
> I expect more from our leaders. You should, and you should be free to discuss and write about exactly what your expectations are and how those leaders failed you.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I actually believe in Institutions with a capital I and want them to succeed, build trust and help educate people of their reputation, historical significance and their importance in society. I’ve worked with NIST for many years - brilliant people doing good work. But when they continue to lie to public, suppress facts, have a political agenda, and media is along with it, it’s becoming harder. I still think CDC does good work. Just that the leadership needs to come out clean and apologize the public for being partisan.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    > I still think CDC does good work. Just that the leadership needs to come out clean and apologize the public for being partisan. Why are you saying "partisan" rather than "incompetent" ? It's surely convenient to blame the institutional incompetence on a strawman "other side", but the fact of the matter is that under administrations from both Parties they've repeatedly dropped the ball. Distributing free rapid tests and finally recommending N95's after most everyone has stopped caring about pandemic is just icing on the cake. Biden's inauguration could have been a great time to break from the previous missteps, but the political narrative of "the pandemic is over thanks to vaccines" had to play instead. Which when you think about it is from the same exact vein of overly optimistic denial as "it'll be gone by Easter", just preached to a different choir.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      It was partisanry. Francis Collins (NIH Director) and Fauci from NSAID were afraid of appearing to support Trump's rhetoric of China-virus. So they doubled down on supression of information and completely shutdown any discussion in the entire scientific community regarding Lab Leak origins.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - mindslight 5y ago
        I'd say it's a stretch to characterize reacting against ignorant demagoguery as "partisanry", but okay. I'd still say the majority of trust was squandered by public facing guidance and actions, rather than what happened behind the scenes.

SomewhatLikely 5y ago

They may have some details wrong, but do you think their overall impression of the event is wildly inaccurate? There was significant violence perpetrated during that event, even if it didn't result in death. Police officers were beaten. When these mistaken people are corrected and told no one died at the hands of rioters, but 150 police officers sustained injuries some so bad they were still out of work six months later, does their opinion significantly change?

nonethewiser 5y ago
>They may have some details wrong, but do you think their overall impression of the event is wildly inaccurate? The prosecutors do. None are being charged with insurrection nor terrorism, just trespassing and disorderly conduct.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > None are being charged with insurrection nor terrorism Haven't 11 Oath Keepers been charged with "seditious conspiracy"[1]? Does that not come under the definition of "insurrection" - "a violent uprising against an authority or government"? [1] "[If] two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States" via https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > Haven't 11 Oath Keepers been charged with "seditious conspiracy"[1]? Does that not come under the definition of "insurrection" - "a violent uprising against an authority or government"? How many of these Oath Keeper individuals were directly led into this activity by FBI agents, CIs, "cutouts"/contractors, such as Ray Epps [1] and Stewart Rhodes[2]? It appears that the recent charges of seditious conspiracy were in direct response to Darren Beattie's reporting of the coverup of Epps involvement, and Darren's drumbeat around Stewart Rhodes. This, after Darren uncovered FBI removing Ray Epps from the most-wanted list, hiding his name, and appearing to cover for their relationship with him during senate testimony. [1] https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/ https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-prot... [2] https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-missing-link-fbi-unindicted-co-conspirator/ https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keeper...

happytoexplain 5y ago

>quietly fixed Note that, while I didn't personally consume any sources of news making these mistakes about this event and therefore can't reasonably comment on them, this specific wording is used extremely commonly as an uncharitable attack on those who are opposite to one's own political leanings. I.e. corrections are always described as "quiet" despite frequently being published in the same manner as the original material.

geekpowa 5y ago

I search "Jan 6 Deaths" and very first hit is this NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol... The article contradicts your claim "reported and quietly fixed days later without ever really owning up to it". Firstly it is the first hit so hardly quiet. Secondly it outlines that initial reporting of Sicknick's death was simply reporting what capital police said, later revised by medical examiner. All front and center in this article.

systemvoltage 5y ago
I am just learning this. I thought all deaths were due to rioters and knew about Ashley's death when she was fatally shot. I read liberal media, all day, everyday - subscribed to WaPo and NYT.
selwynii 5y ago
Corrections get a tiny single digit fraction of the views of the original. There is no button to make sure everyone who saw the original sees the correction, assuming one is made. All you need is a few other places making the same claim, sourced to NYT, and only the people that care enough will even click through to read the source. NYT isn't putting corrections on headline news for the same visibility as the nice fresh off the press article.
- sharperguy 5y ago
  There labels on all the major social media platforms now saying if something is considered misinformation. Maybe there should be a "major parts of this story were retracted by the media outlet" or something to news articles like this.
remarkEon 5y ago
This largely has to do with the social media ecosystem in which these traditional companies find themselves, where social media is the primary vector for information access for the majority now (HN is an extreme outlier where people may actually read things beyond their "news" feed). "quietly fixed" in that sense means "NYT reports one thing and it goes viral, corrects/updates/adds context later post-virality and, because it doesn't fit the existing narrative established by the initial viral story, most don't see it". Most people don't go back and check to see if a story they read 6 months ago has some new details that fundamentally change the impact of that story. Whether NYT knows about this phenomenon, and (ahem "quietly") tunes their reporting to that phenomenon is a separate question.

creato 5y ago

> The problem is the government and traditional media have been caught lying again and again. These two things are huge. They are not monolithic entities that "lie" or "don't lie". I think a big problem is such blind cynicism. Especially when the alternatives people are turning to are hilariously worse. I'd be more sympathetic to the claim that traditional media is terrible if they weren't using that to direct influence towards crazy uncles on facebook instead. I think many things people think are "lies" are just uncertainties. The pandemic is full of these. There are a ton of confounding variables and we don't have any perfect control groups from which to make any conclusions. Basically every big issue that gets debated by the internet armchair experts is badly affected by this: COVID severity, the effectiveness of vaccines, masks, Ivermectin. Every damn thread is full of people speaking as authoritatively as they possibly can pointing to individual studies or data points without understanding the context, scale, or confounding factors.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

flyingcircus3 5y ago

> traditional media I see this distinction made all of the time when this topic comes up. The mainstream media is untrustworthy. Corporate media has an agenda. Legacy media is corrupt. These qualifiers all imply that there is some non-traditional, non-corporate, non-legacy media that does not have these problems. Yet whenever the people making these distinctions are asked who/what these superior alternatives are, the answers are always underwhelming, or outright laughable. So who are these beacons of truth you allude by contrasting the "traditional" media?

nonethewiser 5y ago
Legacy/traditional/corporate/entrenched media has an outsized impact. There doesnt need to be some pure alternative in order to recognize that.
- flyingcircus3 5y ago
  If there is no pure alternative, then these problems are not unique to legacy/traditional/corporate/entrenched media, and therefore have nothing to do with them being in the mainstream.
double_nan 5y ago
I'm not sure that there is such a beacon of truth you are looking for. May be that should be the resolution after all the dust settles.
- flyingcircus3 5y ago
  Of course there isn't! That's why its so preposterous to single out "traditional" media as the sole purveyors of falsehoods. Meanwhile, this other segment of the media is essentially a broken clock of bottomless cynicism and grievance airing, which somehow bears no blame for the erosion of trust.
  - double_nan 5y ago
    I guess there was too much trust in the MSM at one point and what we see now is a 2 fold problem: 1. A hangover after the blind trust period 2. A degradation of MSM became obvious and opened a way for smaller outlets and citizen journalists.